Still no answer to my question, "How could there be nothing instead of something?"

Makes as much sense as the more popular version. How do we know that "nothingness" is the default setting and "somethingness" the exception?
Even Stephen Hawking seems to make this baseless assumption.

Bill's quest for a reasonable discussion is doomed to failure when the thread's chief, perhaps sole, disbeliever in evolution won't even respond to the simple question of why his view is preferable and his understanding of science and belief is more profound than anyone else's.

When one advances a position on anything, one generally says why it should be accepted. Otherwise it can be ignored, because there's no basis for discussion.